Dream on America: World Increasingly Rejecting US Model

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
thanks for the kick in the pants - how foolish of me to let the troll get to me.

It wasn't intended at you in particular, nor was it an insult to the people in general (you'd notice that I too didn't reply to his analysis, but to his one-liner).

It's only that such is the nature of troll threads. To have answers, either you post something aggressive and short, or you reply to one person in particular.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
given that it would be a humiliation to Chirac, I dont think so.

Yet the socialists are even more anti-US. You think the Bush admin. is that petty? And yet you think these Bozos can do anything worht a damn?

Cause of his anti-US foreign policy. and cause the US right has an obsession with leftism in Latin America, for deep historical reasons. The CIA worked quite well with social democrats in Europe during the cold war.

The CIA also worked quiet well with homicidal regimes during the cold war, so what? Heck, we worked with the Communist Chinese during the cold war. As for anti-US policies, what are anti-Us policies? Perhaps urging some other model or self-determination? I thought the US didn't care, as long as a place was a democracy.

Well, as a more successful Israeli economy could mean less need for US aid, thats a different matter. In any case the Israeli economy remains far more socialist than say, Britains. Or even Germany's I think.

Economic aid to Israel has little to do with Israel's economic necessity and much more to do with US politics and military aid. And Israel should have whatever economy it cares for, but certainly the US is there cheerleading privatization- the US certainly DOES care. Note the endless calls telling Europe to go towards more American type levels of consumption so they can buy US goods and bail out the US.

Poland and Czecho dont follow Euro on social welfare? Rummy was just trying to shake off the accusation that his policy had no support in europe. Which doesnt mean he doesnt think social welfare leeds to anemia - why wouldnt he then want MORE socialism in europe - surely he doesnt want france and germany to be STRONGER, does he?

How would moe social welfar in Europe weaken the power of Germany and France in the EU? And again, the US wants Europe to start spending like the US, because the US has its own eocnomic problems. The US never shuts up about bliaming the world wide economic situation of economic performance in Europe and japan as a way to dent criticism that the US's spending spree is the bigger danger.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


In the end it is a less dynamic model with slower average grow rates that means countries with more dynamic models will simply have the luxury of being able to afford higher margins of error to still reach the same goals.

What goals? Europeans have less stuff, that is for sure. They also have more free time and live longer than Americans. Maybe Europeans have gotten there already. After all, not everyone can be rich, and wealth inequality in the US is growing, and the ability to move between economic classes is declining in the US.

[Combat Ingrid]

If Ukrainians eventually vote in a free and fair election and thereby thwart the reemergence of an authoritarian Russian empire along the borders of democratic Europe, it will be one of those rare hinges of history where looming disaster was turned into glittering opportunity.

[snip]

This is an arc of crisis if ever there was one, and especially now with Putin's play for a restoration of the old Russian empire.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


Yet the socialists are even more anti-US. You think the Bush admin. is that petty? And yet you think these Bozos can do anything worht a damn?


LOTM - pardon Spiff and others have given me the impression the PS would be less antiamerican than Chirac. Spiff?

Cause of his anti-US foreign policy. and cause the US right has an obsession with leftism in Latin America, for deep historical reasons. The CIA worked quite well with social democrats in Europe during the cold war.

The CIA also worked quiet well with homicidal regimes during the cold war, so what? Heck, we worked with the Communist Chinese during the cold war. As for anti-US policies, what are anti-Us policies? Perhaps urging some other model or self-determination? I thought the US didn't care, as long as a place was a democracy.

LOTM - i would think friendly words for Saddam, support for Castro, support for FARC, etc. I said we didnt care about Chavez's internal policy, not that we didnt care about anything other than being a democracy. We are still concerned with other countries for policies.

Well, as a more successful Israeli economy could mean less need for US aid, thats a different matter. In any case the Israeli economy remains far more socialist than say, Britains. Or even Germany's I think.

Economic aid to Israel has little to do with Israel's economic necessity and much more to do with US politics and military aid. And Israel should have whatever economy it cares for, but certainly the US is there cheerleading privatization

LOTM Frankly I see no particular evidence of that - certainly the US encouraged Sharon to take Labor into the coalition.

- the US certainly DOES care. Note the endless calls telling Europe to go towards more American type levels of consumption so they can buy US goods and bail out
the US.

LOTM - er, thats not about social welfare - thats about the usual international currency concerns. Most countries would like their major trading partners to consume more. Hell, thats why Japan and China FUND our deficits.

Poland and Czecho dont follow Euro on social welfare? Rummy was just trying to shake off the accusation that his policy had no support in europe. Which doesnt mean he doesnt think social welfare leeds to anemia - why wouldnt he then want MORE socialism in europe - surely he doesnt want france and germany to be STRONGER, does he?

How would moe social welfar in Europe weaken the power of Germany and France in the EU?

LOTM - by leading them to have lower growth rates and eventually smaller economies, from the POV of conservatives.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
My understanding that higher rates of infant mortality in the US are associated with drug use, teen pregnancies in communities without structure, etc. Which arguably are caused by social policies, but not health care.

Do you have anything to back up this BAM? It can easily be showed that access to prenaal care lowers infant mortality and saves the lives of perspective mothers and is it any wonder the US is near the bottom of the list of industrialized nations when it comes to both prenatal care and infant mortality?

In the US you get great care if you are rich or white but try getting the same level of care in south central Los Angles where no one is white or in rural areas especially in black rural southern areas.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Do you have anything to back up this BAM? It can easily be showed that access to prenaal care lowers infant mortality and saves the lives of perspective mothers and is it any wonder the US is near the bottom of the list of industrialized nations when it comes to both prenatal care and infant mortality?

In the US you get great care if you are rich or white but try getting the same level of care in south central Los Angles where no one is white or in rural areas especially in black rural southern areas.

It was pure speculation. Now what exactly does this have to do with international affairs? I supported Hillarycare in 1994. But that my side failed surely doesnt prove anything one way or the other about the desirability of democracy in Iraq or Iran, or that the EU approach to Israel is preferable to the US one.

[Kidlicious]

There's actually quite a conservative backlash against Bush's speech. Interesting. An editorial in the WSJ, called the speech dreaming but disturbing. Bush went way over the top.

[Spiffor]

BTW, I've now read the article. While many things are speculation, I find the figures of the BBC poll to be extremely interesting. There is indeed a lag between the US' self-image (as a model the Americans believe most people want to imitate, at least in the big picture), and the foreign image of the US.

I was pleasantly surprised in Bush's speech that he expressedly said he didn't want to spread the American model in particular. While I think it will take time for these words to became an actual attitude, I think it shows that quite a few people (even from the supposedly most self-centred conservatives) in America are prepared to fight the assumption that everybody dreams to be like you guys.

There's still some time to go, but at least there's hope that you understand you're not the shining beacon of democracy anymore, but just yet another political model.

[Dinner]

BTW most industrial privitizations are a good idea because study after study have shown companies do better when management is free of political interference and instead work simply for the good of the company. There are numerous examples (especially from the 1970's) of nationalized companies being forced to hire workers they didn't need & couldn't use because politicians needed to lower the unemployment rate to keep voters/the people happy. There are also lists of cases where companies were prevented from downsizing the workers they didn't need and couldn't use because in nationalized companies politicians all to often put politics above sound business judgement.

More often then not private businesses out perform nationalized businesses and that leads to greater economc growth and lower unemployment over time. There are other factors at play as well (some we can control and others we can't) but this one is a no brainer.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
LOTM - i would think friendly words for Saddam, support for Castro, support for FARC, etc. I said we didnt care about Chavez's internal policy, not that we didnt care about anything other than being a democracy. We are still concerned with other countries for policies.

The US cares quite a lot about his internal policies and his external policies. BUt it goes beyond that- if the point of the UIS is to spread liberty, and a free state want to, say, trade with a communist regime, what is the US response to the actions of a free state, if we think freedom is paramount?

LOTM Frankly I see no particular evidence of that - certainly the US encouraged Sharon to take Labor into the coalition.

The US wants labor in the coolition to get the peace process moving-it has nothing to do with approving of Labors economic plans.

LOTM - er, thats not about social welfare - thats about the usual international currency concerns. Most countries would like their major trading partners to consume more. Hell, thats why Japan and China FUND our deficits.

Yes it is: a society that decide that social walfare, NOT growth, is the point has no reason to go along with some other society that has made ever increasing economic expansion its top priority. China today has economic expansion as its aim- it certainly wants to play the game. japan is trying to recover out of a slump, so it wants growth. That doesn't change my previous point- that a society like the US based on consumption will trhive better in a world of peers, in a world full of US immitators. If people are NOT immitating the USm it causes problems.

LOTM - by leading them to have lower growth rates and eventually smaller economies, from the POV of conservatives.

And yet, they will spend less on US good and help imbalance the US-why we keep complaining about EU spending.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BTW most industrial privitizations are a good idea because study after study have shown companies do better when management is free of political interference and instead work simply for the good of the company. There are numerous examples (especially from the 1970's) of nationalized companies being forced to hire workers they didn't need & couldn't use because a politicians needed to lower the unemployment rate to keep voters/the people happy. There are also lists of cases where companies were prevented from downsizing the workers they didn't need and couldn't use because in nationalized companies politicians all to often put politics above sound business judgement.

That is an issue of political corruption, not economic management. In theory then, a public company free of political oversight beyond regularoty oversight should perform just as well-the difference being how profits are used, or if there are profits.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
More often then private businesses out perform nationalized businesses and that leads to greater economc growth and lower unemployment over time. There are other factors at play as well (some we can control and others we can't) but this one is a no brainer.

What industrial ventures are there left to privatize in France and Germany? Or for that matter in non-postcommunist Europe?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The US cares quite a lot about his internal policies and his external policies. BUt it goes beyond that- if the point of the UIS is to spread liberty, and a free state want to, say, trade with a communist regime, what is the US response to the actions of a free state, if we think freedom is paramount?

LOTM - cause we think other free states that cooperate to support freedom. Of course Venezuala can trade with Cuba if it pleases, and join with Castro in blaming all the regions problems on the US, but it would be odd to expect the US to like that.

LOTM Frankly I see no particular evidence of that - certainly the US encouraged Sharon to take Labor into the coalition.

The US wants labor in the coolition to get the peace process moving-it has nothing to do with approving of Labors economic plans.

LOTM - precisely - those are below the raider screen.

LOTM - er, thats not about social welfare - thats about the usual international currency concerns. Most countries would like their major trading partners to consume more. Hell, thats why Japan and China FUND our deficits.

Yes it is: a society that decide that social walfare, NOT growth, is the point has no reason to go along with some other society that has made ever increasing economic expansion its top priority.

LOTM - huh? From the viewpoint of conservatives (which is what were debating here - higher social welfare means higher taxes which means lower growth)

China today has economic expansion as its aim- it certainly wants to play the game. japan is trying to recover out of a slump, so it wants growth. That doesn't change my previous point- that a society like the US based on consumption will trhive better in a world of peers, in a world full of US immitators. If people are NOT immitating the USm it causes problems.


And yet, they will spend less on US good and help imbalance the US-why we keep complaining about EU spending.

LOTM - Why would they spend less on US goods - increase social welfare spending, without increasing taxes, and you get more consumption, and more imports. Youre confusing the labor-leader choice that is probably deeply rooted in cultural differences, with calls for fiscal stimulus.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

What industrial ventures are there left to privatize in France and Germany? Or for that matter in non-postcommunist Europe?

Which is why we're MORE similar than we were decades ago. Which seemed so F**king obvious when Clinton was prez. Now people fantasize huge differences, cause theres a Jeezus worshiping cowboy in the WH.